Snipped …
>Shraddha, you've said
>"The measurement mechanisms and advertisements in ISIS support micro-second
>granularity (RFC 8570)."
>Could you direct me to the text in RFC 8570 that defines the measurement
>method, protocol that limits the >resolution to a microsecond?
Pls refer RFC
Greg,
One thing to keep in mind is that even though we can measure latency at a
precision of 10's or 100's of nanoseconds, does it hurt to round the link
delay up to the nearest microsecond? One way to look at this is that by
doing such rounding up, we add at most 1 usec worth of additional
Hi Aijun,
> My suggestion is still not introduce such non-cumulative metric to cumulative
> based SPF calculation process.
Again, what we’re proposing is cumulative.
Tony
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Hi Greg,
> Firstly, I am not suggesting it be changed to a nanosecond, but, perhaps, 10
> nanoseconds or 100 nanoseconds.
>
Ok. The specific precision isn’t particularly relevant to me. The real
questions are whether microseconds are the right base or not, and whether we
should shift to
Hi Shraddha,
thank you for pointing out the text. Though it mentions that the value is the
average delay calculated over configured, i.e., pre-defined interval, that
seems it leaves out some important aspects of the measurement method, e.g.,
number of measurements in the set over which the
Hi Anoop,
thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree, it is very likely that in most
cases, the potential inaccuracy of 1 usec per link would not affect the
construction of a route. But for cases that require very low bounded latency,
e.g., DetNet, such a level of uncertainty about the
Hi Tony,
thank you for clarifying your view on this. Please find my notes in-line below
under the GIM>> tag.
Regards,
Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R
Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
>>>
That’s not a big deal, but when we make the base more precise, we lose
range. If we go with 32 bits of nanoseconds, we limit ourselves to a link
delay of ~4 seconds. Tolerable, but it will certainly disappoint Vint and
his inter-planetary Internet. :-)
>>>
The current 24 bits of usec delay
Speaking as a WG member:
I think the argument for delays < 1 usec is very weak and haven’t heard any
compelling arguments.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 6:08 PM
To: Tony Li
Cc: lsr , "gregory.mir...@ztetx.com"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG
